Man gets one day in jail for rape charges

[KARMA 1,022]

1 hour ago, Miel said:

But... why were they dropped? Why did the prosecutors drop it? Jeez...

OT but I go to school near Stanford, and if I ever see Turner he finna catch these hands.

you go to college? because i went to a college near stanford too

[Whispering 18,865]

Ridiculous! 

This is why most victims choose not to humiliate themselves again by going through a useless court case. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

24 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I find that pseudo-religious talk that has no place in a secular society.

The concept of justice is not religious. Crime and punishment were created in human society before the advent of religion. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I guess that's a response to me lol

I started that argument because probation was mentioned in contrast to a jail cell. The charges were dropped (for a reason we don't know) so I didn't see a reason to start talking about this guy. I take issue with you implying that I'm defending him though. Where/how?

There's never a news thread about black people being arrested for crimes like this (and if there were, you know everyone would defend them because all black people are Jesus now on this forum), so I don't get why you're bringing that up either.

See, that's just nonsense. I already stated in this thread that I don't believe either incarceration or probation is effective for rehabilitation but I also explained why and you don't mention that argument.

I mean, I get your point perfectly but I don't get why you're writing in that defensive tone as if people in here have posted the opposite opinion - they haven't.

It wasn't actually a direct response to you,  which is why i didn't quote you  

I was honestly kind of just blowing off steam tbh  I do see the argument (that I was talking about) a lot in tons of different forums though so I thought I'd ramble about it, its not "that" unrelated to this tbh and at most its preemptive. The opposition to my point hasn't actually been said here (yet ) , so in relation to your argument it was mostly tangential. To be fair, I did just wake up and this was like the first thing I saw, it made more sense in my head  

Spoiler

Also, I don't believe "everyone" would defend black people in that case, in fact I could name several members who probably wouldn't.  I cackled at the "all black people are Jesus" line though; Don't tell that to the WASPS  

 

[PartySick 174,629]

40 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Why is the only time I hear arguments about "the prison system should be about reform not punishment" come when it's a man getting off of rape charges and not about black people being arrested for non-violent drug crimes or anything else as non serious as that

To be fair, I say that in every case and as a survivor myself, I'd never defend a rapist's actions 

Not sure why race needs to be brought into it too 

Spoiler

I know you weren't directly referring to me either, just saying

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

16 minutes ago, PartySick said:

To be fair, I say that in every case and as a survivor myself, I'd never defend a rapist's actions 

Not sure why race needs to be brought into it too 

  Reveal hidden contents

I know you weren't directly referring to me either, just saying

 

It was just the most prominent example in my head  

[pie-kun 1,765]

I think it's important to include the prosecutor's response to this. According to them, the witnesses had trouble recounting important details of the crime and there was also video/photographic evidence that surfaced that contradicted some of their testimony. Because of this, the prosecutor did not believe they had the evidence to prove the rape charges.

 

"This case presented a very unusual set of circumstances in that we had two unrelated accusations, two years apart. That was an important consideration in our initial decision to charge. However, under the law, a jury considering one case would not be allowed to know about the other. After the case(s) was filed, evidence continued to be developed that lead us to the conclusion that neither case, standing alone, presented sufficient evidence to prove rape.

In the older case, the complaining witness had no specific recollection of the events; the few witnesses could not recall important details due to the passage of time and the consumption of alcohol; and the complaining witness's decision to prosecute came two years after the event which severely hindered the investigation. 

There were also photographs that contradicted the assertion that the complaining witness was incapable of engaging in consensual activity shortly before the alleged assault. 

This is important because the complaint was that she was 'unaware' that the sex was occurring due to her consumption of alcohol. Indiana law has a provision in the rape statute that makes this charge available to prosecutors.

The more recent case had similar evidentiary problems. In that case there is video evidence of activities of the complaining witness, before and after the alleged assault, which does not support the assertion of a forcible rape, which was the charge in this instance. There is also DNA evidence that is problematic, and made it impossible for us to prove that the defendant was the cause of her injury.

This turn of events was frustrating for us as prosecutors, due to the fact that there were two complaints against the defendant. 

That fact is the reason we continued to pursue accountability on his part which led to this plea agreement. It should be noted that he entered a plea of guilty to Battery as a Level 6 Felony. The decision to enter it as a misdemeanor was within the Court's discretion."

 

To be honest, their statement makes a lot of sense to me and I can understand why the prosecutor made the decision they made.  It's unfortunate that the internet is making this its latest hate campaign without even trying to get the other side of the story.

[PartySick 174,629]

12 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It was just the most prominent example in my head  

I'll buy that

For now

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

15 minutes ago, pie-kun said:

I think it's important to include the prosecutor's response to this. According to them, the witnesses had trouble recounting important details of the crime and there was also video/photographic evidence that surfaced that contradicted some of their testimony. Because of this, the prosecutor did not believe they had the evidence to prove the rape charges.

 

"This case presented a very unusual set of circumstances in that we had two unrelated accusations, two years apart. That was an important consideration in our initial decision to charge. However, under the law, a jury considering one case would not be allowed to know about the other. After the case(s) was filed, evidence continued to be developed that lead us to the conclusion that neither case, standing alone, presented sufficient evidence to prove rape.

In the older case, the complaining witness had no specific recollection of the events; the few witnesses could not recall important details due to the passage of time and the consumption of alcohol; and the complaining witness's decision to prosecute came two years after the event which severely hindered the investigation. 

There were also photographs that contradicted the assertion that the complaining witness was incapable of engaging in consensual activity shortly before the alleged assault. 

This is important because the complaint was that she was 'unaware' that the sex was occurring due to her consumption of alcohol. Indiana law has a provision in the rape statute that makes this charge available to prosecutors.

The more recent case had similar evidentiary problems. In that case there is video evidence of activities of the complaining witness, before and after the alleged assault, which does not support the assertion of a forcible rape, which was the charge in this instance. There is also DNA evidence that is problematic, and made it impossible for us to prove that the defendant was the cause of her injury.

This turn of events was frustrating for us as prosecutors, due to the fact that there were two complaints against the defendant. 

That fact is the reason we continued to pursue accountability on his part which led to this plea agreement. It should be noted that he entered a plea of guilty to Battery as a Level 6 Felony. The decision to enter it as a misdemeanor was within the Court's discretion."

 

To be honest, their statement makes a lot of sense to me and I can understand why the prosecutor made the decision they made.  It's unfortunate that the internet is making this its latest hate campaign without even trying to get the other side of the story.

Can you post the link to that?

Im sure they cant discuss like, super specific details about the case, but this just makes me wonder more than anything if this was actually reason enough to drop charges. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that though  A lot of what they seem to be describing isn't "that" out of the ordinary in rape cases, which is why they are so hard to try and so hard to prove in the first place and why people avoid seeking justice for them. Even the time frame, the "contradictory evidence", the fact that there are 2 cases, etc. doesn't strike me as definitive enough to drop charges, but I guess they did, so that's that  Maybe if we knew more specifics about the photos, the videos, etc. we could make a more informed guess as to why, but we don't so I can't  

[pie-kun 1,765]

1 minute ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Can you post the link to that?

Im sure they cant discuss like, super specific details about the case, but this just makes me wonder more than anything if this was actually reason enough to drop charges. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that though  A lot of what they seem to be describing isn't "that" out of the ordinary in rape cases, which is why they are so hard to try and so hard to prove in the first place. Even the time frame, the "contradictory evidence", the fact that there are 2 cases, etc. doesn't strike me as definitive enough to drop charges, but I guess they did, so that's that  Maybe if we knew more specifics about the photos, the videos, etc. we could make a more informed guess as to why, but we don't so I can't  

 

Their full statement can be found in the blue graphic in this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3664015/Prosecutors-defend-giving-former-Indiana-University-frat-boy-no-prison-time-allegedly-raped-two-women-frustrated-victim-says-plans-file-civil-suit.html

[Miel 15,009]

1 hour ago, KARMA said:

you go to college? because i went to a college near stanford too

Yeah, UC Santa Cruz. Not super close, but not exactly far, either- and I go to the Bay area every now and then, so these hands gon be prepared.

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, Didymus said:

Ready for everyone to read over the fact that the prosecutors dropped the rape charges. Anyway, I think this is good. I'll take probation over jail for most criminals anyway.

I'm sure most criminals will take probation over jail as well. 

 

Appropriate punishment for rape? One day in jail, a year of probation.

Let's make it a nation-wide policy! I'm sure the incidence of rapes won't increase.

 

Not sure if you're trolling, but you shouldn't, since it's a serious topic.

[Sara 1,144]

10 hours ago, Didymus said:

Ready for everyone to read over the fact that the prosecutors dropped the rape charges. Anyway, I think this is good. I'll take probation over jail for most criminals anyway. Both are ineffective flop responses but I seriously don't believe in the idea that taking someone away from his natural habitat for years and then pushing him back in is going to have a significant impact for the better.

I don't follow why you think it's good that a rapist should get probation over being put in jail?   I know we don't know why the prosecution dropped the charges, so we probably shouldn't judge this case as good or bad justice....

But in general, if someone does commit rape, they need to be put in prison rather than be put on probation, to stop them from hurting others.  I understand that we don't do enough to rehabilitate, and that the prison system is messed up for many reasons, but isn't it still better than letting them roam free?  

 

 

 

 

[Didymus 34,380]

21 hours ago, MJHolland said:

The concept of justice is not religious. Crime and punishment were created in human society before the advent of religion. 

No one knows when religion originated, so that's just a self-defeating argument right there. Scientific paradigms reject the very idea of justice, and we're supposed to be a secular society founded on reason. Concepts of just punishments for crimes in a moralistic sense are outdated in that respect. Obviously people like you prove that the large mass still cares more about unfounded dogmatic thinking than scientific guidance. Still wanted to point it out.

13 hours ago, Sara said:

I don't follow why you think it's good that a rapist should get probation over being put in jail?   I know we don't know why the prosecution dropped the charges, so we probably shouldn't judge this case as good or bad justice....

Why not? Like I wrote in this thread: I believe people who engaged in criminal behavior are much better treated if they get guided treatment in their actual living situations. I don't think the "we'll just push them in an entirely unique and new situation and teach them how to be good people and then they'll know what to do when they return to their original, familiar one" philosophy is convincing.

13 hours ago, Sara said:

But in general, if someone does commit rape, they need to be put in prison rather than be put on probation, to stop them from hurting others.  I understand that we don't do enough to rehabilitate, and that the prison system is messed up for many reasons, but isn't it still better than letting them roam free?  

Maybe in the society we live in, but I do think there's a lot to be done for us to be able to understand the impulse for sexual assault. Until we understand why people continue to rape in a society where sex is available (and free) to the max, we're not gonna make much progress by just shutting them up and hoping the problem will magically disappear.

I obviously know that practically my ideals aren't applicable (yet) but it was about my preference in general, not about what I think is right in particular

[MJHolland 12,725]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

No one knows when religion originated, so that's just a self-defeating argument right there. Scientific paradigms reject the very idea of justice, and we're supposed to be a secular society founded on reason. Concepts of just punishments for crimes in a moralistic sense are outdated in that respect. Obviously people like you prove that the large mass still cares more about unfounded dogmatic thinking than scientific guidance. Still wanted to point it out.

What? Science has disproven crime and punishment? How so?

Having a justice system is a necessary and proper responsibility of all governments, unless you want to get down into philosophical questions of human nature and whether or not we are inherently good or bad.

But in the meantime you sounds like a delusional person trying to make the argument that we've evolved past justice and science has proven so.